The free market is the system where money can only be earned by delivering goods or services that are valued by your fellow men so that they voluntarily hand over their cash to you in return for your goods or services. The only alternative system is one where people are forced to fork over their money against their will: a system of institutionalised robbery . That’s the system you’re advocating. At the same time you seem to think that your system of institutionalised robbery is the moral one . Sad!
Mises institute is retarded and neoclassical + Austrian economics is pseudoscience.
>You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
I have my own publishing platform https://sociobiology.org I built with open source technologies. I absolutely do not rely on entrepreneurship. If Substack did not exist, I would still publish, but less tards would because they can't code. So the entrepreneurship if anything takes attention away from the best thinkers by commoditizing thought.
>The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
I am writing about ethics, so what matters is natural entitlement and not incentives. There are ways to arrange society justly and have more technological development and wealth than today. Worshiping risk is not a needed component of this.
>No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
They are by definition at the poles. Luck is not made -- that is the definition I use. As soon as you switch to "made luck" you are discussing profit. Of course, the process of gaining wealth probably has a partial, but significant wealth component, as well as a merit component. What this means is that there is still randomness given a merit level, which is what matters from the aristocratic POV.
>What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
I broadly agree with this analysis but still the prole government mostly did not disturb Hayworth's bourgeois undertaking. His story reflects 19th century bourgeois government which I am critical of as well as prole governments.
It's clear you're just not cut out for this and need your retarded words and free market dogmas over at the verbal econ center for wannabe geniuses who have sub 130 quantitative IQs. Bye
The free market is the system where money can only be earned by delivering goods or services that are valued by your fellow men so that they voluntarily hand over their cash to you in return for your goods or services. The only alternative system is one where people are forced to fork over their money against their will: a system of institutionalised robbery . That’s the system you’re advocating. At the same time you seem to think that your system of institutionalised robbery is the moral one . Sad!
Mises institute is retarded and neoclassical + Austrian economics is pseudoscience.
>You'd not be able to publish this article on this website without entrepreneurship, so you're dependent on risk-taking entrepreneurship having taken place at some point in the past.
I have my own publishing platform https://sociobiology.org I built with open source technologies. I absolutely do not rely on entrepreneurship. If Substack did not exist, I would still publish, but less tards would because they can't code. So the entrepreneurship if anything takes attention away from the best thinkers by commoditizing thought.
>The risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurship absolutely justifies outsized potential gains because that's the basic incentive.
I am writing about ethics, so what matters is natural entitlement and not incentives. There are ways to arrange society justly and have more technological development and wealth than today. Worshiping risk is not a needed component of this.
>No, these are not mutually exclusive ideas.
They are by definition at the poles. Luck is not made -- that is the definition I use. As soon as you switch to "made luck" you are discussing profit. Of course, the process of gaining wealth probably has a partial, but significant wealth component, as well as a merit component. What this means is that there is still randomness given a merit level, which is what matters from the aristocratic POV.
>What you call 'business' today is really 'allowed' regulated and taxed business activity under the redistributive proletarian rule of the social democrats, ie., post-liberals (see P. Gottfried 'After Liberalism').
I broadly agree with this analysis but still the prole government mostly did not disturb Hayworth's bourgeois undertaking. His story reflects 19th century bourgeois government which I am critical of as well as prole governments.
yeah this is so low brow, the physics of the "social sciences", sure bro https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5b996da-f6d8-476d-be3f-07fd1682486c_1684x1962.png
It's clear you're just not cut out for this and need your retarded words and free market dogmas over at the verbal econ center for wannabe geniuses who have sub 130 quantitative IQs. Bye